On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:03:06AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 10:20:16PM +0000, Richard Moore wrote: > > Ok then, perhaps f.d.o should simply put out a statement saying > > that what the people creating Tango are saying isn't the f.d.o. > > position, then continue to host it. > > Why?
Because, as Travis intimated, what is being said about Tango does not reflect its true relationship with freedesktop.org. > > Must I also yell from the rooftops that anything in Open Clipart isn't > necessarily 'the fd.o position' because it doesn't agree with several > peoples' ideas on styling? The only mention of freedesktop in the openclipart homepage is a note saying where it is hosted - hardly the same. [various off the wall examples deleted] > > (Pet peeve: it's freedesktop.org, not free.desktop.org.) Well, if I'm abreviating Free Desktop Organisation, it's f.d.o. do we need a spec for this? :-) > > > As I said earlier in this thread, currently people's perception of > > what f.d.o does is currently contradicted by the fdo web site. If this > > isn't fixed then fdo is acting against its own aims. > > Interesting assertion. Surely you agree that having the purpose of freedesktop.org misunderstood cannot help its aims. From the website: 'Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a "collaboration zone" where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto specifications are encouraged.' Except, that's not how it is often represented. This in turn harms its use as a forum for collaborating. Cheers Rich. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
